The English language, multilingualism, and the politics of location

Abstract

Drawing on Pennycook's frameworks for understanding the global role of English, we discuss the paradoxes of English language usage in what Canagarajah terms ‘periphery communities’ internationally. This analysis is complemented by Canagarajah's work on a ‘politics of location’, which provides powerful insights into a periphery community's local and global investments in English. This notion is explored with particular reference to Norton's work in South Africa and Pakistan, which suggests that creative responses to the dominance of English, whether through codeswitching, appropriation, or subversion, defy essentialist analysis. We argue further that the notion of a politics of location can provide insights into English language usage not only in periphery communities, but also in center communities as well. In this regard, there is urgent need for the ongoing research of such scholars as Cummins, who has sought to better understand the challenges to bilingualism and multilingualism in center communities.

Keywords:

• center communities
• English
• investment
• multilingualism
• periphery communities
• politics of location

Notes

1. The term ‘center communities’ refers to ‘the technologically advanced communities of the West which, at least in part, sustain their material dominance by keeping less developed communities in periphery status,’ while periphery communities are ‘communities where English is of postcolonial currency, such as Barbados, India, Malaysia, and Nigeria’ (Canagarajah 1999, 4).

2. For further details regarding the ‘Speak Good English Movement’ (SGEM), please refer to the official website: http://www.goodenglish.org.sg/SGEM/

3. On various internet web blogs created and mediated by Singaporeans (see, for example, Singapore Ink n.d or Singapore Watch n.d), the notion of national identity in regards to the Singlish language debate was one theme of discussion amongst bloggers; however, other posts also alluded to issues of linguistic and cultural imperialism.

4. These are the labels used in language rights discourses. We have placed the terminologies in quotations to indicate that while we use these labels, we recognize the controversies that surround them. For a more detailed discussion regarding language rights, see Skutnabb-Kangas (2000, 2001, 2002).

5. See also Pennycook (2003) for an examination of the use of English as a counter discourse in the performing and renegotiation of racial identities through Asian rap and hip-hop.

6. However, Corson (2001) discusses the complexities of such legitimation in the Australian context as due not only to the sheer number of community and regional languages (standard and ‘non-standard’ varieties) currently in use, but also to the vast geographical distribution of speakers of each of these languages (107–8).